TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (7) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t'. It is stated in the complaint that the 2nd respondent issued Ext.Pl cheque in favour of the petitioner in discharge of an amount of Rs. 60.000/- alleged to have been owed by him and on presentation of the same, it was dishonoured stating "funds insufficient". The petitioner caused a statutory notice to the 2nd respondent demanding the amount covered by the cheque. Though the 2nd respondent received the notice, the amount was not paid. Hence the complaint was filed. The trial Court took cognizance of the offence and tried the case. Before the trial Court PWs. 1 to 4 were examined on the side of the prosecution and marked Exts. P1 to P9. On the side of the defence 2nd respondent himself was examined as DW1 and Exts.Dl to D5 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompoundable offence is not a legally enforceable debt or other liability. The learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of this Court to a decision reported in Gray v. Southouse (1949) 2 All ER 1019. In the above decision the Court considered a claim made by sub-tenants for recovery of the sums paid as consideration for a non-executable contract. The Court held that the sub-tenants were entitled to recover the money paid as a consideration. The facts in the above case are entirely different from the present case. 6. Section 376, IPC which relates to an offence is not compoundable in the eye of law. If any contract is entered into between parties without consideration or for a consideration which fails, would not create any o....